Talk:Reginald Barclay
Alien? Do we know that Barclay was a human and not a human looking alien? I ask because in Genesis he deevolved into an arachnid while the human characters regressed into hominids. Tyrant 01:46, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant : And Troi turned into a fish...I really think you're looking far too deep into it. --Gvsualan 09:11, 26 Jan 2005 (CET) Troi is half Betazoid. Worf is Klingon and also had a unique deevolution. However, Ogawa, Riker and Picard all turned into prehumans. Tyrant 12:30, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant ::I believe dialogue in the episode established that the crew members de-evolved along random tracks of their genetic history -- meaning that human crewmembers could have de-evolved into several Earth species that were recorded in dormant sections of their genomes. Since a lot of the science from the episode seems to be bunk anyway, theres probably more complications to it than meets the eye -- suffice it to say that some aspect of the future science involved in all the dormant genes beings reactivated, some property we don't understand must have been at play. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:17, 26 Jan 2005 (CET) :::I'm not suggesting we make any big changes because of this. And I realize the science in the episode is junk, but at the same time I think we should at least acknowledge the fact that the human crew members actually changed into creatures we have in our history according to evolutionary theory. Spiders are something we certainly didn't evolve from and only Barclay turned into one. Tyrant 22:13, 26 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant ::::The only explanation that really makes any sense (not that there's a whole lot of sense going around in Star Trek's internal scientific logic) is that one of Reg's ancestors had some kind of arachnid genes. Im sorry but how would he get those? I really wonder how. --Matthew 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC) :Interspecific reproduction. Jaf 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Jaf Featured status? Anyone think this is good enough for a nomination? *No way! This article says nothing about , an episode completely about Barclay! You can't have a featured article that is missing major sections of the character's life. *We need to add something about his ever more terrible combover! Huh? (That was a joke.) --Werideatdusk 03:41, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC) Actual Job title Does anyone know for sure if he is ever mentioned as a diagnostic engineer as your article claims? In he is mentioned as a "diagnostic technician". A technician and engineer are quite different. A technician practices a technique, an engineer applies science. Three seasons later he is mentioned as a "systems engineer" during the episode you can infer that he might actually be a diagnostic engineer. However, anything that is not on screen is not canon. Is his job title mentioned anywhere else? --The Sunborn from wikipedia Homage? Is his name a homage to Rene Auberjonois' character, Clayton Endicott III, in Benson? -- Tough Little Ship 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :No. Barclay first appeared before DS9 even began production. 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Moved From Memory Alpha:Pages for immediate deletion Lieutenant Barclay As best I can tell, it's not practice to put links in to characters by name+rank as above, and anyhow, nothing uses that redirect. -- Sulfur 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC) *Why not keep it? It would only make searching easier. Jaz talk 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :*Yeah, this one's an iffy. Redirects don't qualify as immediate deletions unless they're plain vandalism, is offensive, makes no sense, or if it causes confusion. I don't think these qualify in this case, but if anyone else feels otherwise, it should be brought up at Vfd, not here. --From Andoria with Love 00:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Then again, if it's an unused redirect, it does qualify. Hmm.... --From Andoria with Love 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :Jaz: My worry at keeping this one is that it suggests that we should also have 'Captain Picard', 'Commander Riker', etc as links. last I checked, those didn't exist, and probably shouldn't exist. But that may just be my take on this one. -- Sulfur 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :Andoria: yah, it was unused when I posted here. -- Sulfur 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ::Call it preference to gain attention for articles about ranks, but its more useful to have Lieutenant.. Worf than Lieutenant Worf since the two links double the possibilities for the reader moving to another article. If we had these as redirects, we'd have to devote effort to making sure they are orphaned.. ::*.. (unless we used them for subsequent uses of the term -- example: Lieutenant.. Worf beamed down, followed by Lieutenant La Forge and Lieutenant Yar). -- Captain M.K.B. 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :::It almost seems worth making a decision on this... the only problem with things like Captain Picard and Captain Janeway is... which Janeway is that (assuming that there were two for example)? That would be my big worry. If you want a link like Lieutenant Worf, do it like Lieutenant Worf. That would be the way I'd suggest doing things. Otherwise, we'll have more redirects to potentially worry about than we have articles. -- Sulfur 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ::::Further followup, it's been another 3 days (or so), and still nothing links to it. It's a poor precedent to set having redirects of rank+name. If we're going to keep this Barclay one, then we should add one for every other named character. -- Sulfur 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Autism? This was just added to Barclay's article this morning: :''It has been speculated that many of his personality traits are indicative of autism. I'm curious. When and where was this speculated? This is the first I've heard of it. -- Sulfur 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) :Hmm, first I have heard of it as well, but it actually somewhat fits. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Oh, I don't deny that it sorta fits, but I'm still curious to know where (and when) it has been speculated. And by whom? (or is that 'who', I always have trouble with those...) -- Sulfur 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) :A google search finds this and this. That's about all I could find, though, and they both speculate on about a quarter of the major characters having autism, so I would not give them much weight. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Autisim is completly off mark. It's a form of Psychotic Organization, that is characterized by a lack of objectal relations to other people, in other words, absolutly no interaction with others. Asperger's is a possibility, but remote. Barclay doesn't seem to reveal great problems with most basic social behaviours, as the almost apathic AS patient. On the Wikipedia article, I reccomend that you read point 2.1, on the social characteristics of the typical subject. He does fill out most of the criteria for Social Anxiety anyhow.– Kitsune H 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Asperger's is out. I have it, and I wanted to join the armed forces, but they said it's an automatic 4F. So unless this policy changed during WWIII, the Temporal Cold War, or the Earth-Romulan War, the fact that Barclay's in Starfleet would rule out Asperger's.– Korora 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC) :The policy would not have had to change during any of those. It could have changed at any point over the 350 some odd years from now until then. Hell, it may not have ever existed in Starfleet. Starfleet is not a continuation of any existing military on Earth, so any existing regulations do not apply in making a determination like this. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC) ::If we use military rules, Geordi La Forge would be out due to blindness, Jean-Luc Picard would have retired due to age (and that heart thing), and who knows what would happen with those Benzites and Elaysians with all their near-unworkable medical conditions.--Tim Thomason 20:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC) :If AS is out, then my theory's screwed. I've got it too. But wait- might this have changed by this time? LaForge would be out. Picard should have retired, if not Tim's right, he'd be out. The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank. 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure I would rule out Asperger's. My pre-teen son has AS and Barclay seems a LOT closer to what I would imagine him to be like as an adult than other media depictions, such as the AS character on Boston Legal. Prof. Moriarty and mobile emitter Something interesting to think about: At the end of Ship In A Bottle, Prof. Moriarty's holographic world is put in the care of Barclay. I haven't actually seen any of the VOY episodes with Barclay, but apparently, after TNG, he became very interested in the fate of the Voyager, and also became an expert in holographs, and specifically in The Doctor's program. Upon the return of the Voyager, he was undoubtedly made aware of Doc's mobile emitter, which could be used to solve Moriarty's dilemma. Although to do so, he would have to bring him out of his little cube and admit he had deceived him. I'm not sure I'd want to be around when Moriarty found that out.--207.119.46.109 06:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC) :There are one or two problems with this theory. It is plausible, but the Mobile emmiter is the only one of its kind in the 24th century. It is futuristic technology, and could be hard to duplicate. Second, we have no idea what happened to the program. It might have been destroyed in the Enterprise-D crash, or ben put in storage and forgotten. Third, we know that the Moriarty program is just as evil as the character from the books, and it would be unwise to let him out, especially since he has no idea his existance at the time is already to his satisfaction. -Nmajmani 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani ::I beg to differ on the last point. The final episode with him well established that he is NOT as evil as his book character. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC) :::Point #1: Barclay is just the kind of mad scientist who could figure out how to duplicate the mobile emitter if given the chance to examine it. :::Point #2: It's is possible that it was destroyed with the Enterprise-D, although Barclay wasn't in Star Trek Generations. Perhaps he, and his personal effects such as the holographic cube, was not on the Enterprise-D when it was destroyed. :::Point #3: He's definitely not someone you want to cross, but Ship in a Bottle did give him a very humane quality. He certainly wouldn't be the worst of the Federation's problems. :::This is all fascinating material. I can only hope this idea is what they base Star Trek XIII on.-- 00:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Chief engineer in Elite Force II? According to this page, in Elite Force II Barclay is filling in for Geordi while the latter is on shore leave. But according to Wikipedia, Barclay is the Enterprise E's chief engineer because Geordi had transferred off of the Enterprise. Zek 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC) :This is probably a better question for Memory Beta, as they specialize in non-canon content like the games, but as someone who played Elite Force II, they portrayed him as the Chief Engineer. I don't remember there being any explanation for why Geordi wasn't there. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I see. I ask here because this article notes that Barclay was the Enterprise E chief engineer in Elite Force II. If he was in that position only in a temporary capacity, then a clarification to the note would be appropriate. Zek 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) :Well, if Elite Force II never makes it clear, then we can't really either. :) -- Sulfur 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Removed Text Any reason that this text was removed? :In 2371, Barclay transferred to Jupiter Station and worked as part of the original holo-engineering team in Dr. Lewis Zimmerman's holographic laboratory to test the Emergency Medical Hologram's interpersonal skills. ( ) It was just removed with no edit summary at all... -- Sulfur 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC) :I've deleted the foloving text from the article: ::In 2371, Barclay transferred to Jupiter Station and worked as part of the original holo-engineering team in Dr. Lewis Zimmerman's holographic laboratory to test the Emergency Medical Hologram's interpersonal skills. ( ) :because I don't think it's real. Barclay was shown to be a hologram created by a malfunctioning holodeck. Therefor, everything he said is false. Furthermore, there was no mentioning of that the things he said was true by the (non-holographick)Voyager crue. if you are to change this back, please note that under my talk : (I didn't have time to write this before you changed. + i forgot summary) --LtCmdr-Vulcan 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) :: So we are going to totally ignore the events of that episode based on assumption of malfunction? Clearly there was a reason why Barclay was chosen to appear, the most likely one being that he was involved in the system design at one point. --Alan 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC) :Yes, we are. Barclay *lied* during the episode. we have no prof that he is telling the thruth here. a reason he may have been used was for his likeness for the holodeck and holograms. therefor it would have been possible for that he said to happen. but it wasn't confirmed by any other person than him.--LtCmdr-Vulcan 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC) :: Well I don't agree with it, nor am I talking about what he said, only the fact that, as I said, clearly there was a reason why Barclay was chosen to appear, the most likely one being that he was involved in the system design at one point. --Alan 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC) ::: I guess I should have read this before reverting the change. Anyway, Kes specifically states in the episode: ::::Barclay was part of the original engineering team that designed your program. He was in charge of testing your interpersonal skills. :::Yes, this part was still in the Doctor's "fantasy", but we have no reason to believe it's false. Why else would the Doctor envision Barclay in his delusion? --From Andoria with Love 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Genesis Just a question - if Barclay's human, then why in does he turn into a spider instead of an ape when he de-evolves?—Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC) :See the first discussion on this page ("Alien?"). – Cleanse 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ::Ah, sorry.—Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Appearances Was Lt. Barclay really only in 5 TNG episodes? I seem to recall him being much more common. Was in in other episodes in extremely brief appearences, rather than playing a part in the story, and so is not listed, or is my memory just way off? – Lazerlike42 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) :He was also in Voyager, and thus it would seem to someone who followed both series' that he had been around a lot longer. Removed :''It has been speculated that many of his personality traits are indicative of or perhaps more mildly . Self explanatory. --Alan 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, I was wondering about that too. -FC 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Just a thought Reg is one of the universally panned characters. If someone can scrape together some sources, you might want to include some critical dislike for the character. :We don't really worry about what people think about the characters ... or anything, really ... we just present the facts. Opinions are irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Besides, Barclay doesn't seem to have anywhere near the "pan" cult following of Wesley Crusher or Neelix, and really, fan opinions shouldn't be on either of those pages, either. IMO, anyway. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --From Andoria with Love 06:17, September 15, 2009 (UTC) Fear of spiders? There is a mention in the description of the episode of "Genesis" where it says he de-evolved into a spider and that it was ironic from his fear of spiders. Does it say somewhere that he is afraid of spiders? In "Realm of Fear" when O'Brien is giving him that pep talk about getting over his fear of spiders, Barclay says that they don't bother him. Is this a goof or did they retcon that? KnightCrusader 02:19, December 30, 2009 (UTC) :I took it out. It was O'Brien who was afraid of spiders. Blair2009 22:08, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :: Contrary to what Barclay said in "Realm of Fear", his reaction to Christina, documented in the script and on screen, would suggest otherwise. --Alan 22:29, February 13, 2010 (UTC)